Set in Stone
From CBS News by way of Political Wire:
Chip Reid asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if senators were correct calling the July 2011 date for beginning to withdrawal troops from Afghanistan a “target,” meaning there was some wiggle room.
Writes Reid: “After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in — there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It’s etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.”
Some were critical of my opinion offering narrow support of the President’s policy today, and indeed many on both sides of the aisle (and whatever aisle progressive Republican Libertarian anti-imperialist pacifist Tyler Nixon now occupies), but the more I think about it, this Afghan policy announced last night, is just brilliant. He is giving the military and the Afghan government one final chance to make things right, with an iron clad end date that will eventually please the left. Now, the right will never be pleased, so forget them. They hate timetables for some stupid notion that the Taliban will just wait out the time table and strike after we leave. The point about staying in Afghanistan even a little while longer with 30,000 more troops is not so we can kill every single last Taliban or Al Queda present in Afghanistan. If that were our goal, then maybe, just maybe, that Republican complaint about timetables would have something to it.
Our goal is to make sure Afghanistan has a functioning government that can defend itself. And if the Taliban go underground until 2011, how is that a bad thing? If the Taliban lay low, it will give the Afghans time to train and begin to defend themselves. And by telling the Afghans we are leaving by a date certain, their government can finally get off their lazy asses and get to work, and the Afghan people will perhaps no longer see us as an occupier, thus thinning the ranks of Taliban recruits who would join the Taliban only to oppose America. It seems to me that the Taliban going underground to wait out the timetable sets the stage to allow this plan to work. And once we leave as an occupying force, remember, we will always have both military and CIA strike forces in the region at the ready to strike at the Taliban and Al Queda. That seems to be a lost element in all of this. Remember that when we talk about adding more troops to those already in Afghanistan we are talking about occupying troops that are attempting to keep the peace in the country. Once we pull those troops out, it is not like we are going to stop hunting down Al Queda and the Taliban, or Bin Laden. That will continue endlessly, so long as they are a threat to all people everywhere.
If the date is set in stone, and not subject to reconsideration based upon the conditions on the ground at the time, then I take back my earlier expression of support and instead urge President Obama to publicly declare that the terrorists have won and issue a presidential directive as commander-in-chief as follows — “Run for your lives, boys, it’s every man/woman for him/herself!”
Typical right wing bullshit. If it is not perpetual war, the terrorists win. Fascism at its best, Biased American.
Typical left wing bullshit. If we stay in Afghanistan six months, six weeks, six days, or six minutes beyond Barack Obama’s artificial deadline, it is transmorgified into a perpetual war. Reality matters less than theory, and facts are trumped by desire. Stupidity at its worst, Delaware Dumbocrat.
My position above is not fascism. It is a concession to a reality acknowledged by every military leader worth his salt throughout human history, namely that plans on the drawing board don’t survive an actual encounter with the enemy, either in terms of a single battle or an overall campaign. If Obama is so wedded to the withdrawal date that he is unwilling to give consideration to altering his announced plans based upon the actual situation in Afghanistan as the announced withdrawal date approaches, then it is better to quit the field of battle now rather than allow brave men and women to die under a plan of battle that the commander in chief is unwilling to alter even if sticking to the plan means defeat.
UA, what happened to the president and secretary of defense knowing things that you don’t know? just because the corrupt general in charge whines and bitches, and the corrupt puppet government set up by bushco is bitching doesnt mean they are right.
Good to see right wing support of the president in war time only applies if the president is a white born again christian.
and to the left….. yes it is a very similar strategy to Bush… BUT the person carrying out the strategy is not a moronic war hawk surrounded by war profiteers.
but i forgot everything is black and white. only right or wrong and not room for debate.
You don’t fight wars on a time schedule. The Soviets tried to train and leave in 18 months and look what it got them. I have faith that the President is speaking of a draw down in numbers not an abandonment. It is okay AP, victory is more cost effective than defeat. We tried your way and it got us 9/11. This way has them on the ropes in their own territory.
Sure they are going to fight. They are in a corner and fighting for the survival of the movement. That is when we pour it on not run away. This is not a boxing match. This is a street fight for survival. You do what you need to do.
this all proves why i am only a registered democrat because a party for my beliefs does not exist. how thin is liberal loyalty that the second the president doesnt act like their lap dog, they compare him to the worste president in history and decry his decisions out of hand? it is pathetic.
seriously i agree with 99.9% of the things posted by the contributors here and the first time i differ from the liberal talking points i get attacked like some wing-nut? i though delaware political junkies were better than that. oh well RD, RWR, whoever else… lets support our president and let all these hippies whine while enemies of america are defeated with smart foreign policy instead of cowboy diplomacy. (ps it isnt all bombs, but sometimes…like when a whole movement exists to kill westerners… you have to use them)
try THIS one on for size…. delcrat would have argued that Hilter wasn’t our problem and if we left him alone he would have gone away…… that felt…. dirty.
And as I said to begin with, i found myself essentially in support of what was announced Tuesday. Most of my disagreements were around the margins, not on the essence of the plan.
But when one announces that one is so wedded to the plan and the timetable that one will not reassess based upon the changing circumstances on the ground (which is essentially what the set in stone declaration means), then the plan (indeed, ANY plan) is a bad one.
A lady at my church broke her foot last spring, and the doctor put her in a cast and said it would come off in six weeks. When he did the final xray, the break still was not healed completely. Should he have still taken the cast off on the theory that the six-week deadline was set in stone? Or should he have kept the cast on for two weeks until the healing was complete? I know which a competent physician would choose. The same applies in this case; Obama should be prepared to reevaluate that deadline based upon reality, not stick to what the theory said would work.
And a.price, don’t play the race card here, or the religion card. Neither enters into the equation in what I am saying, nor does it, I believe, in the case of most folks who are critical of Obama’s move, either on the left or right. Playing it in this case is evidence of weak thinking and a lack of logic (and decency) on your part.
I’ve got one more analogy for you, one that might make my point a little clearer.
On thanksgiving day, I cooked a ham. It should have taken a certain amount of time to cook, but when I pulled it out and cut it it was clearly not cooked through, and needed additional time in the oven. I kept it in the oven to make sure it was through, rather than get everyone at dinner sick by serving them raw pork.
Saying that we withdraw after 18 months is a nice goal — but will the reality allow for us to complete our mission in that time?
Ham is already “cooked” when you buy it. Putting it in the oven merely warms it through. Perfect analogy, you just don’t understand what exactly it is you are trying to accomplish.
Good job meatball, and some of us would never serve ham on Thanksgiving, let alone any other time!
actually Bush was identified, by himself, by his religion. All of his “resolute” decisions and “bold action” was proudly proclaimed by him to have come from his deep spiritual convictions. It was also something the right always bragged about.. having a president who goes to war because god tells him to… horrifying. I for one am happy to have a president who doesn’t makes these type of choices based on something that has no place in American policy.
“Set in stone!” What does that mean? Here are the exact words that Obama used in his carefully crafted speech: “This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”
For “our troops to begin to come home” is what is “set in stone”. But Obama carefully avoided giving a timetable for a scheduled withdrawal, so he allows himself tremendous flexibility. Therefore the 18 months is more like a checkpoint in time, and a benchmark regarding Afghani readiness to take over their own defense, policing and overall security.
The statement sends a message to the Afghans that we are not intending a permanent occupation, and to the liberals that we are not in for an unending war, and to the warhawk conservatives that he is willing to escalate our military effort, albeit it temporarily.
Except he has now indicated (through Gibbs) that withdrawal WILL begin in 18 months, not just a check and evaluation. If it were what you suggested, perry, i would wholeheartedly agree with the policy.
Just like closing Gitmo in January, right?
oh and that indefinite detention was a dandy.
Shhhhh…State secrets, you know.
I’ll see your state secrets and raise you executive privilege! booooyaah!
Yeah, that whole executive privilege issue –like Obama withholding his social secretary from congressional investigators.